Freedom is A Christian Idea

   As I survey the bewildering array of political ideas that float around television, newspapers, social media, overheard conversations, etc. it occurs to me that a point needs to be made to clear the mud out of the water.
   There seems to be a general consensus that "religions" are all basically the same.  That is, everyone worships the same God by whatever name they give him, and, except for some of the finer theological differences, there is a moral equivalency to the whole religious soup.  It follows, then there really is no reason why we can't all "get along."  If we could just get past all of the superfluous wrangling about doctrine, we should be able live peaceably together.
   Muslims need to get over their idea that everything non-muslim must be exterminated;  Christians need to get over the idea that God somehow has conferred upon them a moral superiority;  atheists need to get over there atheism, etc.
   A closer look at all of this prompts one to pause over the idea of "freedom."  If freedom is defined as being able to think and do what you want, to earn and keep the things that you have created, to move freely around in your own environment, to be safe from harm from other people, to associate (or not) with anyone you wish, and generally decide for yourself what you want to believe -  even if the choice sends you to hell, then the fundamental ideas of Christianity are vastly superior to all other theological systems.  Even if you do not believe anything about Christian doctrine, the true seeker of wisdom and truth embraces the basic idea of Christian thought because it provides the most sought-after social environment - true institutionally established freedom.
   What sets Christianity apart from all of the religions of the world is the idea that man is a special creation of God and is endowed with the personal dignity of deciding his own fate.  Without this basic premise, freedom is not possible.
   So the true seeker of wisdom and truth who questions everything, with tongue-in-cheek enthusiastically embraces the idea that God created him and, by God, nobody is going to tell him what to do or believe, nobody is going to take away his money or his land or his country, he is going to say what he wants when he wants to, and if anybody doesn't like it, too damned bad!
    So when the liberal politician rails against the "intolerance" of Christianity and attempts to stamp it out, what he really is doing is laying the axe at the roots of his own freedom and all others in the society.  Totalitarian political systems cannot tolerate this individual freedom because free men will not be bullied and have their lives taken over by a bunch of pinheads.
   What does all of this mean?
   Even if you do not have any faith of any kind in God or creation or moral objectivity, if you are a clear-eyed seeker of wisdom and truth, you must pretend to embrace these ideas and enthusiastically promote them because it is in your own best interest.
   What about it, seekers?  Have you got the guts to act in your own (and everybody else's) best interest, or will you retreat into the vacant world of an ideology that will ultimately  strip you of your dignity and your wealth?

What Is Missing Here?

   Over the past 40 years or more, a sure way to get a government grant for research is to propose studying the process by which one species morphs into another.  This elusive process lies at the very heart of the credibility of evolutionary theory which claims to account for the bewildering complexity of life that we see on our planet.  Yet after countless "studies" costing the taxpayer billions of dollars, this process (if there is one) has never been discovered;
   It occurs to me that the reason the process has never been discovered is that there is no process at all and new species arise from a totally different source
   It must be noted that species do not differ from each other by subtle variations in the DNA.  Rather, they differ by billions of individual instruction sets.  A forensic pathologists can quickly determine if a strand of hair is from a gorilla or a human.  A complex instruction set for hair exists in all mammals, but none of them are the same.  In an evolutionary process by which one species morphed into another, one would expect to find some of the instruction sets to be identical, thus proving that there is a rational bond that definitively binds one species to another.
   If there is no process which brought about this incredible diversity of life that we see, what could be the cause?  Keep in mind that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
   As an observer of living things (including myself) it seems apparent that all living things "know" that they are living and that they must survive.  For any "survival-of-the-fittest" scenario to have meaning, creatures must first "know" that they are supposed to survive.  If we have tickets to see the Rolling Stones next month, we "know" that, even if we are  not supposed to survive until next month, we at least know that we want to.   The birds, mice, lizards, algae, do not have tickets to future enjoyable events, but they, nevertheless, seem to be actively engaged in behavior which will enable them to survive.
   One cannot say that this apparent survival "knowledge" could have evolved simply because it would have had to come first.  In other words, no purposeful behavior could have come before the purpose.
   What does all of this mean?
   It seems that life is a result of a pervasive purpose which emanates from some unknown source.  This is very troubling to thorough-going evolutionary theorists who have made the leap of faith to the conclusion that all of life arose as a result of "natural" processes, and, even though this process has yet to be identified, the ideology of evolutionary theory is openly taught as fact to our children and acted upon as cultural and moral relativism.
   I would like to see a study proposed which has as its stated goal, to prove the source of this "life force."   Funding would likely be slow in coming.